- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,244
- Reaction score
- 15,287
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.
In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".
I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.
Motorcycles are man made, from natural materials...:2razz:
I know that. That’s not what I asked.
Correct...you didn't ask a question at all...:roll:
You didn’t read the title of the thread?
I gave my answer to that...there was no question in your post...:roll:
I asked whether they were considered "natural". I did not ask whether they were made from "natural materials". And they're not, anyway. You can go out and dig up steel or a motor. Those are MANUFACTURED materials, not "natural" materials. There is a big difference.
So i am correct...got it...:2razz:
Not at all. You need to look up the definition of natural.
Maybe you should look up the definition of correct...
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.
In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".
I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.
To suppose a motorcycle is unnatural would mean that tools are unnatural, but given that human intelligence and ability are part of nature, then their results should be as well.
Simply not true. There is a difference between "natural" and "manufactured". The former occurs on its own with only the "laws" of physics and biology and chemistry in the universe as its "guide". Manufactured involves the INTELLIGENCE of homo sapiens to take those natural occurrences and use them for purposes of manufacture of items that could not have occurred without additional assistance.
Same as with Elvira: look up the definition of natural.
Or — whenever you see, read or hear of something that would or could be supernatural you assume there must be a natural cause and refuse to believe there is a supernatural one whether man ever finds out or not. In other words, you have merely decided that there is no evidence for it.It's a matter of semantics. I look at things in three categories. 1) Nature. 2) Artificial..constructs that use the natural properties to manufacture something (even beaver dams and bird nests), and 3) supernaturlal .. beyond natural. The third has no evidence for it.
Or — whenever you see, read or hear of something that would or could be supernatural you assume there must be a natural cause and refuse to believe there is a supernatural one whether man ever finds out or not. In other words, you have merely decided that there is no evidence for it.
it seems like it's worth a discussion.
Natural is simply a different type of manufacturing. In the case of what arises without man's intervention, that natural tends to be a construct made of nanobots (or just mechanical or nuclear processes) whereas the type of manufacturing that tends to have man's intervention uses other methods.
The factor of intelligence is not really that important because even natural selection displays a form of preference (survival and reproduction)as a process, just like human intelligence.
Sorry for starting so many threads, but sometimes the topic in another thread gets so diffused that there are many different conversations going on and a specific focus on a particular one is often needed.
In this case, the chatter basically made the statement that "since humans are a PART OF NATURE, then everything that they do should be considered as "natural". For instance, said chatter claimed that building a motorcycle should be considered as "natural".
I disagree, of course, but it seems like it's worth a discussion.
To suppose a motorcycle is unnatural would mean that tools are unnatural, but given that human intelligence and ability are part of nature, then their results should be as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?